Upon impact, occupants of a vehicle experience forces tending to cause physiological stress. It is desirable to reduce the physiological stress, thereby reducing trauma and injury.
The automotive safety application of the embodiment addresses immediate concerns of vehicle occupants. The recent increased CAFÉ standards stultify conventional efforts in employing acceptable means of dissipating the transfer of shock during any type of collision. The new standards mandate industry design to minimize available mass, traditionally used for protection and dissipative means. Vehicles must conform to the new 54.5 MPG standard as OEMs realize the sober expectation of more expensive and unsafe vehicles, causing millions to refuse economics of the new car market and its associated increases in death and injury.
Conventionally speaking, the answer to shielding the occupant during a sudden acceleration event is to secure him to a two ton mass, and place a few cushions between him and the mass. This may prevent some from ricocheting off the interior, or going through the windshield. It is commonly understood forces can stress the occupant, in a multitude of directions, to a fractious outcome. Yet, oftentimes, in the presence of a stochastic vector, the occupant is unable to remain secured to receive any substantial form of anticipated protection.
The innovation addresses the management of direct transfer forces and inertia in the event of a vehicle collision, for an ultimate gain of passenger protection. Airbags presently have a strong presence on the stage of passenger protection, whereby a vast set of innovative improvements is employed.
Ideally, a dampen dissipation element, as an airbag is positioned to capture force transmitted by the passenger, expressed as a stroke. A stroke source being the upper torso of the body, pivoting forward at the waist.
It has become obvious to authors of credibility, an airbag is effective in dissipation of energy in result of a long stroke. The airbag requires a long dissipative stroke for effective and meaningful dampen value imparted to the passenger, as expressed in Breed, who furthers an exception, employing a comparatively larger proportion of gas volume and surface tension area employed in force dampen.
Another protection device in acclaim is the belt tensioning mechanism, imparting a passenger position control of the upper torso, rendering potential significant value, especially in the early pre-deployment phase of airbags. Restraining the passenger to a near vertical position during airbag deployment, and release of restraint during the stroke, permitting a dampening of the upper torso range of motion. Of further note, timing requirements in initiating tension values of the device are critical in gleaning benefit of the airbag stroke/dampen characteristics. Which are in strong question of providing benefit if the passenger size or proportion is not within the scaled value of the restraint design. Particularly children, short, large or overweight adults.
These protective elements may comprise an appearance of a strong solution set to the unwary consumer. One may ask, higher magnitude forces occur from any direction. And, if side curtains are an acceptable dampen device, why are they not provided for the frontal direction of force? Or, frontal airbag protection for the side collision? The reason being, none of the solutions is without obvious limitation, nor comprehensive in addressing the full needs of the consumer passenger. Being designed for one direction dissipation, the frontal airbag is limited to that one direction, primarily for collinear forces such as collision with a wall, a mass perpendicular, or head-on, in the direction of travel. Requiring forces to be collinear with the direction of travel. If a vehicle happens to be struck outside the frontal collinear alignment of travel-direction inertia and direct forces, passenger bodies are exposed to risk of much greater traumatic consequence. When a passenger inertia is offset from the collision direct force transfer, a non-controlled passenger deflection with the airbag is likely to occur. And further, as previously stated, the belt tensioning device is signaled to slacken, permitting the passenger to bend forward for a dampen stroke, in compression of the bag and dissipation of force.
This slacking of belt tension promotes lateral movement of the whole body in some cases, or at least the upper torso, depending on the belt mechanism. In both cases, surrendering body control, made especially obvious during a side collision event. But common in events where the body is subjected to more than one direction, as in a body inertia, versus a direct force transfer.
The recent advent of the ceiling air bag may provide speculation in addressing belt tensioning, yet any significant passenger torso movement, providing the opportunity of a dampen stroke, again exposes the body for susceptibility to lateral movement. The larger magnitude events require greater protection capability, for a larger dampen stroke, and with it, greater exposure to larger lateral forces, for an overwhelming loss of force management control. But given a scenario of a passenger remaining anchored to the seat, any lateral deflection dampen dissipation means is limited to the frontal direction, requiring a force of frontal origin.
It's been no secret. The art has remained restricted to the sourcing of dampen and dissipation of passenger body forces, during collision, to the movement of the upper torso. Submarining of the body serves witness of upper torso management myopia. Focusing acceleration forces upon a potentially limited mechanical movement and portion of the body. As dampen dissipation of side lateral forces is obviously not available in the forward movement of the torso, for several reasons. Consideration can be furthered, why isn't there a symmetrically equal, stronger and comprehensive protection available to passengers from forces of any lateral 360 degrees of direction?
A conventional fastening of passengers to the vehicle, in a static, near upright position has been found not to be the answer. In example, by securing their helmets and bodies to the car frame, professional race car drivers submit their bodies to a controlled format. But, to the ultimate consequence of death, in some types of minor appearing direct force collisions, even at low to moderate speed, having no opportunity for force deflection, employing minimal dampen dissipation capability.
Management in distinction of collinear and non-collinear, rotation, or secondary inertia vectors is vacant. No passenger protection of the art currently distinguishes among the above, in managing these events beyond the same solution set, a safety belt and pillow. Requiring subjection of the passenger body to perform in a force transfer dance. Working no management of the stochastic vector, prior to a direct force bombardment of the passenger, from one or more directions with expectations of relief, in a cushion afterthought.
Permitting a short redress of perspective, in a passenger vehicle, the maximum stroke comprising a dissipation travel range, is limited to the movement of the upper torso, which is restricted by the safety belt. As the airbag is the dissipative medium for its protection, the body is restricted by the safety belt, as the purpose of restraint is restricted by the need for dissipation. A format, permitting only solutions of built-in limitation, with purposes in conflict of each other. Identified largely as chasing tail.
Safety force control limitations, followed and held closely by the industry for more than fifty years, secure the passenger body to a nearly two ton mass, committing it to destruction, in exposure to a magnitude of forces foreign to the conceptualization of the passenger, for a decimating consequence. It is hoped the following demonstrations illustrate limitations formed, in 100 year old plus technology, are no longer needed, or acceptable.
The exercise of extensive efforts identifying the position of passengers, for qualifying deployment of airbags, and recognizing the possible negative consequences of airbag contact for a safety belt secured occupant, being out of acceptable positioning, may be an opportunity for the industry to recognize system limitation and potential for an alternative approach.
Even the most aggressive protection designs in occupant restraint systems, provide little or no means for controlled force deflection. Requiring the body and restraint system to assimilate full scale acceleration forces immediately upon impact. The roughly thirty percent who are saved as a result, can be thankful for the present state of technology. Yet, the present and future demands to resolve opportunities for safety are expected to only escalate.